CVE-2013-6811
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedMultiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the D-Link DSL-6740U gateway (Rev. H1) allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that change administrator credentials or enable remote management services to (1) Custom Services in Port Forwarding, (2) Port Triggering Entries, (3) URL Filters in Parental Control, (4) Print Server settings, (5) QoS Queue Setup, or (6) QoS Classification Entries.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceMultiple CSRF vulnerabilities in the D-Link DSL-6740U Rev. H1 router allow attackers to hijack administrator sessions. Authenticated admin requests to change credentials or modify network services (port forwarding, parental controls, QoS, print server, remote management) lack anti-CSRF protection, enabling silent unauthorized configuration changes via malicious web pages.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify router modelLog into the router web interface (typically 192.168.1.1) and check the device information page, or inspect the physical device label for model number DSL-6740U Rev. H1Affected if The device is a D-Link DSL-6740U Rev. H1
-
Check firmware versionIn the router web interface, navigate to the firmware or status page to view the installed firmware versionAffected if Any firmware version is installed (all versions affected)
-
Verify remote management is disabledIn the router web interface, check Remote Management or Access Control settings to see if WAN-side admin access is enabledAffected if Remote management (WAN access) is enabled, increasing exposure to external CSRF attacks
-
Confirm web interface accessibilityAttempt to access the router web interface from a browser while authenticated, then test whether unauthenticated requests to change settings succeed without anti-CSRF tokensAffected if The web interface is accessible and lacks CSRF token protection on configuration endpoints
If you have a D-Link DSL-6740U Rev. H1 router with any firmware version and its web interface is accessible, the device is affected by this CSRF vulnerability.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataReplace or network-isolate the legacy device as no firmware update is available; if continued use is required, restrict administrative access to trusted networks only and avoid browsing untrusted sites while logged into the router.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6811 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2013-6811 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data